Vishna Devi Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4667 MP

                                   1

                                                     W.P. No.21802-2021



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
                                 BEFORE

        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
                      ON THE 1st OF APRIL, 2022

                  WRIT PETITION No. 21802 of 2021


     Between:-
     VISHNA DEVI VERMA W/O SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
     VERMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
     MIDDLE TEACHER (WARDEN) KASTURBA GANDHI
     GIRLS HOSTEL (RMSA) PRITHVIPUR, R/O WAD NO.1,
     ORCHHA ROAD, PRITHVIPUR, DISTRICT NIWARI
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                     .....PETITIONER
     (NONE FOR THE PETITIONER)

     AND

1.   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
     PRINCIPAL  SECRETARY,   SCHOOL EDUCATION
     DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN
     BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.   THE COMMISSIONER RAJYA SHIKSHA KENDRA,
     ARERA HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

3.   COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, GAUTAM
     NAGAR, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

4.   COLLECTOR NIWARI, DISTRICT NIWARI (MADHYA
     PRADESH)

5.   DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, NIWARI, DISTRICT
     NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

6.   SANKUL PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGHER
     SECONDARY SCHOOL, PRITHVIPUR, DISTRICT
     NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

7.   BLOCK     EDUCATION   OFFICER,   PRITHVIPUR,
     DISTRICT NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

8.   SMT. RANJNA TRIPATHI W/O SANJAY TRIPATHI,
     MIDDLE TEACHER R/O NEAR PRITHVIPUR FORT
                                         2

                                                                  W.P. No.21802-2021



     NIWARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
     (BY SHRI AMIT PANDEY, LEARNED PANEL LAWYER FOR
     RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7/STATE)
     (BY SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR
     RESPONDENT NO.8)


...................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:


                                    ORDER

In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the

petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of the order dated

27.09.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.5, whereby the charge

of Warden, Kasturba Gandhi Girls Hostel, Prithvipur, District Niwari has

been withdrawn from the petitioner and the same has been handed over to

respondent No.8.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner is

Class-III employee holding the post of Middle Teacher and presently posted

as Warden at Kasturba Gandhi Girls Hostel, Prithvipur, District Niwari. Vide

order dated 17.12.2019 the petitioner was given the charge of Warden,

Kasturba Gandhi Girls Hostel Prithvipur, District Niwari. Respondent No.2

issued a letter on 13.08.2013 stating that posting of the Warden is for three

years. Thereafter, the charge of Warden has been withdrawn from the

petitioner vide impugned order dated 27.09.2021 and the same has been

handed over to respondent No.8. Hence, this petition.

W.P. No.21802-2021

3. It is stated in the petition that the impugned order is manifestly illegal,

arbitrary and erroneous and therefore, deserves to be quashed. The impugned

order has been passed to accommodate the respondent No.8. No opportunity

of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing the impugned order.

Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the

petitioner has no vested right over the additional charge of Warden, Kasturba

Gandhi Girls Hostel, Prithvipur, District Niwari, which is of temporary

nature, as is evident from the order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P/4). There

is no violation of any legal or fundamental right of the petitioner. The service

condition of the petitioner is also not changed by withdrawing the additional

charge. It is further contended that the petitioner has no right to ask for or

stick to the additional charge. The impugned order does not cause any

financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the petitioner. If the petitioner is

unable to discharge her duties efficiently, the authorities have powers to

replace her with another person, who can manage the affairs properly. In

support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma & Ors. as reported in

1993 SCC supl. (3) 252.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The impugned order is only an order withdrawing the additional

charge. Substantive post of the petitioner is Middle Teacher. The petitioner

was neither appointed/promoted to the post of Warden nor she was reverted

W.P. No.21802-2021

from the said post. She was only holding the additional charge, which has

been withdrawn.

7. This Court is of the considered view that the respondents are within

the powers to issue the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 (Annexure P/1)

withdrawing the additional charge from the petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise the

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE

vc Digitally signed by VARSHA CHOURASIYA Date: 2022.04.05 11:14:50 +05'30'